Hi Mo,
On 14/10/16 04:39 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
> I would like to propose another option.
>
> 4) Add an informational note in the update draft that the codebase on
> opus-codec.org has diverged, and may continue to diverge, from the code in
> RFC 6716, without breaking normative bitstream compatibility.
>
> This option seems sufficient and lightweight.
Well, I think at this point the opus-codec.org encoder is significantly
better than the one in RFC6716. It seems weird to say "using the RFC
6716 encoder is NOT RECOMMENDED" without having the IETF itself
distribute a better implementation.
Cheers,
Jean-Marc
> Mo (as individual contributor)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: codec <[email protected]> on behalf of Jean-Marc Valin
> <[email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:13 PM
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [codec] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of the Opus draft. It adds fixes for two
> decoder integer wrap-around issues discovered through fuzzing. None of
> them is particularly frightening, but they still needed to be fixed. At
> this point, I do not expect more fixes to this document -- please let me
> know if you think I missed something.
>
> I'm also realizing just how much the "current" codebase on
> opus-codec.org has come to differ from the code in RFC6716. This
> includes many many fixes and improvements to the encoder and fixed-point
> decoder. Since they are not normative bitstream changes, they are not
> included in this update draft. I think it would be nice to update the
> IETF "reference implementation" of Opus to reflect the improvements.
> That being said, I'm not sure what's the best way to do that. I can
> think of several options:
>
> 1) An (informational?) RFC with updated based64 tarball containing the
> newest version
> 2) A tarball of the new version uploaded as meeting material like the
> original testvectors (where would we link to it?)
> 3) Somehow mirroring the opus-coder.org downloads on the IETF website
>
> There's probably other options too. Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jean-Marc
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt
> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:43:24 -0700
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec of the IETF.
>
> Title : Updates to the Opus Audio Codec
> Authors : Jean-Marc Valin
> Koen Vos
> Filename : draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt
> Pages : 9
> Date : 2016-09-01
>
> Abstract:
> This document addresses minor issues that were found in the
> specification of the Opus audio codec in RFC 6716 [RFC6716].
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
